From: | "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Isaac Morland" <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Mike Artz" <michaeleartz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |
Date: | 2025-07-21 14:47:19 |
Message-ID: | DBHTCY6HQ1KO.H54EA0FZ4XIN@gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon Jul 21, 2025 at 11:29 AM -03, Isaac Morland wrote:
> Is this different from using the window functions in a subquery and then
> applying a WHERE clause on the outer query?
>
> SELECT … FROM (SELECT … [including window functions] FROM …) WHERE [stuff
> that would be in QUALIFY]
>
> I'll be honest, I'm skeptical that we need another keyword that basically
> means “WHERE, but applied at a different point in the query processing”.
> I'm not even convinced that HAVING was a good idea (although obviously I
> would not propose removal).
>
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
You're right — semantically, using QUALIFY is equivalent to wrapping the
query in a subquery and applying a WHERE clause to the result. The main
motivation here is to provide a more ergonomic and readable syntax.
While I understand the hesitation around introducing another keyword
that effectively acts like WHERE at a different stage, I believe QUALIFY
improves clarity in many use cases, by avoiding the boilerplate and
visual noise of nested subqueries making it easier to write and reason
about.
--
Matheus Alcantara
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2025-07-21 14:55:45 | Re: track generic and custom plans in pg_stat_statements |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-07-21 14:41:22 | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |